NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court ruled
on Wednesday that criminal proceedings in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity and financial fraud cannot be
quashed even if the parties settle the dispute amicably as such offences are
not private in nature.

"Heinous and serious offences involving
mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot
appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have
settled the dispute (sic). Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact on society. The decision to continue with the
trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences," a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and
Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud said.

'HC
could quash trial in criminal cases that are civil in nature'
Bringing the offence of financial and economic fraud on a par with other
heinous offences like murder and rape, the court held that the accused in such
cases could not be let off even if the litigants resolved the dispute in an
out-of-court settlement as it created a dent in the economic spine of the
country.
"Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the
state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between
private disputants. The high courts would be justified in declining to quash
where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic
fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the
financial or economic system will weigh in the balance," the bench said.

The court passed the order while
dismissing an appeal filed by four persons seeking quashing of the FIR against
them for allegedly grabbing land on the basis of forged documents in Gujarat.
They contended that the FIR should be quashed since the matter had been settled
with the land owner who had filed a criminal complaint against them.
The court said that a high court could quash the proceedings in criminal cases
which were predominantly civil in nature after parties settled the dispute but
not in serious offences.
"As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which
have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is
concerned. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial,
financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially
civil flavour may, in appropriate situations, fall for quashing where parties
have settled the dispute," it said.

Referring to its earlier verdict, the bench said the entire community would be
aggrieved if prosecution against economic offenders was not allowed to
continue.